4 ms·

> Actually, if the company has significant market power, which does not require a monopoly, then anti-trust law can absolutely force a company to do business wi

> Actually, if the company has significant market power, which does not require a monopoly, then anti-trust law can absolutely force a company to do business with others. Actually, this is incorrect. This is known as a refusal to deal and very specifically applies to companies with monopoly power only. More than eighty years ago, the Supreme Court set out the fundamental principle that still guides consideration of cases involving refusals to deal in the United States. As the Court stated in United States v. Colgate, ìin the absence of any purpose to create or maintain a monopoly, the Sherman Act does not restrict the long-recognized right of a trader or manufacturer engaged in any entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal. Accordingly, refusals to deal are actionable only when done by a firm creating or maintaining a monopoly power. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/us-submissions-oecd-and-other-international-competition-fora/usrefdeal.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/us-submi...

stale2002 6y ago
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/refusal-deal https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... The FTC itself says that there are situations that a company with significant market power can be forced to deal with other companies in certain situations. > very specifically applies to companies with monopoly power only Monopoly power, according to FTC, is defined as significant market power. So not a literal monopoly. The FTC defines that here: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct" > nly when done by a firm creating or maintaining a monopoly power. This supports my point. The FTC is agreeing with me here, by saying that the government can force companies to deal with others, if it relates to their anti-competitive behavior, and they have signficant market power. Read up on what the FTC means, when it is talking about this. It is talking about significant market power.
- nodamage 6y ago
  > So not a literal monopoly. You're really fixated on this phrase but you don't really seem to understand what they mean. A literal monopoly means a single company that controls the entire market. Of course that is not required. I did not say a literal monopoly was required. The text I quoted did not say a literal monopoly was required. No one said a literal monopoly was required. The text I quoted says that monopoly power is required. That is all.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > The text I quoted says that monopoly power is required. Which is in reference to significant market power. So cool. It seems like you agree with me, that it is significant market power which is required. And Apple's significant market power, of ~50% of the US smartphone market can fall within that realm. The point that I am making is that 50% of a market is within the realm of what courts have deemed to be significant market power, where significant market power is defined according to section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act. And it seems like you agree with me and the FTC that 50% of the market share can fall within this definition, and can be within the realm where section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act applies. Here is another quote talking about this, from the FTC: "A "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.". So significant and durable market power. That is the definition. Glad you agree with my definition that is simply a quote from the FTC.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      While the courts have said it is theoretically possible for a company with 50% market share to have monopoly power, I haven't seen any court cases where this has actually occurred. Feel free to point one out. > "which does not require a monopoly" Do you see how your original statement was misleading? Monopoly power is in fact required in order to pursue a refusal to deal. In the future when you see someone use the term "monopoly power", you should interpret that to mean "significant and durable market power" instead of "a literal monopoly". It will reduce confusion.
      - 6y ago

stale2002 6y ago

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/refusal-deal https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... The FTC itself says that there are situations that a company with significant market power can be forced to deal with other companies in certain situations. > very specifically applies to companies with monopoly power only Monopoly power, according to FTC, is defined as significant market power. So not a literal monopoly. The FTC defines that here: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct" > nly when done by a firm creating or maintaining a monopoly power. This supports my point. The FTC is agreeing with me here, by saying that the government can force companies to deal with others, if it relates to their anti-competitive behavior, and they have signficant market power. Read up on what the FTC means, when it is talking about this. It is talking about significant market power.

nodamage 6y ago
> So not a literal monopoly. You're really fixated on this phrase but you don't really seem to understand what they mean. A literal monopoly means a single company that controls the entire market. Of course that is not required. I did not say a literal monopoly was required. The text I quoted did not say a literal monopoly was required. No one said a literal monopoly was required. The text I quoted says that monopoly power is required. That is all.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > The text I quoted says that monopoly power is required. Which is in reference to significant market power. So cool. It seems like you agree with me, that it is significant market power which is required. And Apple's significant market power, of ~50% of the US smartphone market can fall within that realm. The point that I am making is that 50% of a market is within the realm of what courts have deemed to be significant market power, where significant market power is defined according to section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act. And it seems like you agree with me and the FTC that 50% of the market share can fall within this definition, and can be within the realm where section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act applies. Here is another quote talking about this, from the FTC: "A "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.". So significant and durable market power. That is the definition. Glad you agree with my definition that is simply a quote from the FTC.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    While the courts have said it is theoretically possible for a company with 50% market share to have monopoly power, I haven't seen any court cases where this has actually occurred. Feel free to point one out. > "which does not require a monopoly" Do you see how your original statement was misleading? Monopoly power is in fact required in order to pursue a refusal to deal. In the future when you see someone use the term "monopoly power", you should interpret that to mean "significant and durable market power" instead of "a literal monopoly". It will reduce confusion.
    - 6y ago